Age of Ultron Spiderman in the Avengers "world"?

[SpideyFan866]

The easiest way to introduce Spidey into the MCU at this point is to say that everything that has and will occur in the ASMverse has taken place after Avengers: Age of Ultron, or after Avengers 3. Preferably Avengers 3.

It would explain why Oscorp tower hasn't been seen in the skyline, and gives them time to explain why the Avengers tower is gone and why we haven't heard anything of the other heroes.

There would still need to be a few minor retcons as far as dates go, but the load would be MUCH lighter in that regard.

As far as the likelihood of this....... its very much possible and, to be honest, very likely. It is VERY unlikely that Marvel will ever take Spidey back from Sony, unless Sony could no longer keep him. So the crossover will eventually happen.

But don't expect it to happen until after 2018, when the MCU has reached it destination in Avengers 3 w/ Thanos, and the ASM series has reached its destination in a Sinister Six film.

Trying to do it now, while both are in major tipping points of their universe, would be a very bad move and complicate things more than they need to be.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Straight from Avi Arad's mouth .....

He's not wrong.

All this pining for a cross-over is for the benefit of the MCU, there's hardly ever any talk of why it would be better for Spider-Man stories and characters.

If it would improve the storytelling of the Spider-Man movies or add something that's missing then I'd be all for it, but Sony has all of his supporting characters and villains and doesn't need anything else to provide good Spider-Man movies.

 

[Iceman]

I never suggested they stop creating awareness. You're suggesting they need other avenues they haven't already taken. You have not shown why they need to go out of there way to strike some kind of deal with Marvel/Disney to get their flagship franchise featured in The Avengers. That is something a studio struggling to get their franchise awareness would do.

Now what the hell? You're the one saying that not me! I'm quite happy with the avenue of a cameo in a film that has overlap ie the current avenue being discussed. You are the one who is saying that this is not worth doing and marketing is only worth doing to reach new people. You're getting confused and trying to make your own duff arguments mine now, maybe too many flustered posts in one day. t: Pls reread the last few posts as there's no point continuing until you at least understand your own arguments.

Btw the brand is Marvel. That's why it's featured before every movie, no matter Sony nor Disney.

Wrong again! Marvel is a brand yes. Spidey is also a brand as are The Avengers, Iron Man, the Big Mac and Kellogg's Corn Flakes. Companies can own multiple brands, you know. Hasbro is a brand and goes before Transformers films but the Transformers themselves are a brand also.

I never said everyone who goes to see Avengers also sees Spidey. Clearly that's not the case by the BO #'s. However, "marketing in front of an audience that large" is irrelevant. It's the same audience at its core. If they see something completely innocuous like him in the background of Avengers for a split second and he has no relevance to the plot or interconnectivity they're suddenly going to go "Hmmmm I think I need to go watch Spidey?" Why? How do you arrive at this conclusion? Ohhhh wait because it's "cool" LOL.

You only seem to know about marketing in the way that it's discussed by comic film fans. Have you ever done any marketing courses or modules within courses? The type of marketing that gets someone to get up and buy a product is only one area of marketing. Brand reinforcement is to do with reinforcing brand awareness, not necessarily making customers want to go and buy the product. When you see just the barely visible name of a brand advertised on a sports stadium hoarding all they are doing is drumming the name of the product into your consciousness. There is nothing there to show that the brand has merit or is preferable to any other brand. I can talk about this subject at great length but I fear it would be wasted as you don't even read every line in my posts and then seem to forget even things we agree on 2 posts later.

I never said new venues only. You have a serious problem with mincing my positions in order to support your arguments. You also keep using yourself as the litmus test and I'm trying to understand why.

Your argument has been that marketing to the existing fanbase using a cameo in another superhero film with big audience overlap is a waste of time, because of the overlap. And I've shown that all companies do this all the time to their existing consumer base. Or are you now conceding that?

And I'm not going on the attack here, just defending against criticisms from the known bully of the Avengers thread who's used to acting superior when talking business and marketing with 13 year olds rather than adults who work in business and marketing.

 

[Rock Sexton]

The easiest way to introduce Spidey into the MCU at this point is to say that everything that has and will occur in the ASMverse has taken place after Avengers: Age of Ultron, or after Avengers 3. Preferably Avengers 3.

Wut?

OK everyone .... in 2018 just forget about the fact that The Amazing Spider-Man movies took place in 2012 and 2014. Just block it out of your mind so that Spider-Man can somehow exist.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Now what the hell? You're the one saying that not me! I'm quite happy with the avenue of a cameo in a film that has overlap ie the current avenue being discussed. You are the one who is saying that this is not worth doing and marketing is only worth doing to reach new people. You're getting confused and trying to make your own duff arguments mine now, maybe too many flustered posts in one day. t: Pls reread the last few posts as there's no point continuing until you at least understand your own arguments.

Chief ..... Spidey having a cameo is a non-standard venue for marketing promotion.

You continue to show any ability to illustrate marketing value of a 2 second non-speaking blink and you missed it cameo other than anecdotal comments and some benign comparison to McDonalds.

You only seem to know about marketing in the way that it's discussed by comic film fans. Have you ever done any marketing courses or modules within courses? The type of marketing that gets someone to get up and buy a product is only one area of marketing. Brand reinforcement is to do with reinforcing brand awareness, not necessarily making customers want to go and buy the product. When you see just the barely visible name of a brand advertised on a sports stadium hoarding all they are doing is drumming the name of the product into your consciousness. There is nothing there to show that the brand has merit or is preferable to any other brand. I can talk about this subject at great length but I fear it would be wasted as you don't even read every line in my posts and then seem to forget even things we agree on 2 posts later.

I'd rather you not attempt to talk about anything in great length after your premise of "ohhmergerd becuz its cool" justifies Sony giving their flagship franchise over to a Marvel Avengers film for the purposes of brand reinforcement.

Your argument has been that marketing to the existing fanbase using a cameo in another superhero film with big audience overlap is a waste of time, because of the overlap. And I've shown that all companies do this all the time to their existing consumer base. Or are you now conceding that?

I'm not conceding anything to your over-generalized commentary. Even Avi Arad (a producer on the ASM franchise) has stated there is no value in this nonsense you keep spewing.

And I'm not going on the attack here, just defending against criticisms from the known bully of the Avengers thread who's used to acting superior when talking business and marketing with 13 year olds rather than adults who work in business and marketing.

You're not going on the attack, you're just going on the attack. I'm happy for you and your fictitious experience in business and marketing. You and I are pretty much finished interacting when it comes to this subject.

 

[Iceman]

Chief ..... Spidey having a cameo is a non-standard venue for marketing promotion.

You continue to show any ability to illustrate marketing value of a 2 second non-speaking blink and you missed it cameo other than anecdotal comments and some benign comparison to McDonalds.

You have to think it out. Would there be major news articles everywhere if this were to actually happen? A Spidey cameo would not add anything material to the film itself but it would create more buzz than the announcement of even Quicksilver & Scarlet Witch to the GA who have never heard of those characters. It's not really just the 2 seconds is it. It's the hype off the back of it.

Look at the kind of crap we're getting (albeit Garfield & Webb quoted) even when nothing is happening or likely to happen in the near future.

http://comicbook.com/blog/2014/02/28/andrew-garfield-marc-webb-want-spider-man-avengers-crossover/

I'm not conceding anything to your over-generalized commentary. Even Avi Arad (a producer on the ASM franchise) has stated there is no value in this nonsense you keep spewing.

What do you expect the guy to say? Actors and directors might say stuff but the people in control can't talk about stuff like this till after it's done.

You're not going on the attack, you're just going on the attack. I'm happy for you and your fictitious experience in business and marketing. You and I are pretty much finished interacting when it comes to this subject.

Now that's a fair point. I did actually go on the attack a bit and I've been way more aggressive, insulting and outright rude than I usually am on all the posts on this subject! I still think you've been a bit of a bully (in the Avengers thread at least) and I hope that changes but outside of the debate where we obviously disagree on a hell of a lot, I don't want that to be my style so apologies for that. I'm happy to finish here if you want.

 

[chaseter]

He's not wrong.

All this pining for a cross-over is for the benefit of the MCU, there's hardly ever any talk of why it would be better for Spider-Man stories and characters.

If it would improve the storytelling of the Spider-Man movies or add something that's missing then I'd be all for it, but Sony has all of his supporting characters and villains and doesn't need anything else to provide good Spider-Man movies.

Sony is batting 2 for 4 as far as good Spider-Man movies and 1 for 4 as far as great Spider-Man movies. TASM and SM3 were mediocre trash.

A crossover benefits both brands. They both get bigger recognition and they both benefit from the exposure at the box office. Anyone who is saying that they do not want Spider-Man in the MCU is not a true fan of Spider-Man because they are essentially wanting less Spider-Man in movies (not to mention the fact that he was an Avenger in the comics). That's the end of that story.

Sony is going to try a S-MCU and it's going to fail miserably...because it lacks Spider-Man.

 

[DrCosmic]

Never said it created a continuity problem. Just stated that, going by the same logic of Spider-Man not being there being a continuity problem, so would Rhodey be. Especially since Rhodey has actual connections to an Avenger while Spidey has none.

SHIELD wasn't looking for 'connections' they were looking for superheroes Rhodey doesn't quite fit the bill, but Spider-Man SO does. Also... Rhodey doesn't live in New York. :| Even if you add him in later somehow... When Avengers 3 comes around, they'll need everyone they can get and Spidey won't be available for the end of the world. That's dumb. Do we really have to go down the list of continuity shenanigans that happen when you do just a Spider-Man easter egg in the MCU?

If everyone else is a supporting cast by that point (going by the "Avengers 3 = Marvel Superheroes film" case), that wouldn't be a problem for me. It would be kinda cool.

As for SHIELD, I already addressed that in my response to Rock Sexton. I also admitted that's a fair and good point.

Also to make something clear, I don't need Spider-Man in Avengers films or the MCU. I'm not asking for it to happen. I just think it would be cool. But if it doesn't happen, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Of course it wouldn't be a problem for the fans. But the issue is... who's gonna pay Garfield? Is Marvel going to write up a one movie contract for someone they don't need? Is Garfield gonna do it at a discounted rate because... why? Is Sony going to pay Garfield to be in a movie that they don't see any profit from? You don't seem to have an appreciation that you're saying "It'd be cool if Sony or Marvel just gave away money and resources."

Well, yeah, that'd be TOTALLY cool. Send the money straight to me, if that's what they're doing.

 

[DrCosmic]

A crossover benefits both brands. They both get bigger recognition and they both benefit from the exposure at the box office. Anyone who is saying that they do not want Spider-Man in the MCU is not a true fan of Spider-Man because they are essentially wanting less Spider-Man in movies (not to mention the fact that he was an Avenger in the comics). That's the end of that story.

Bigger exposure to who? Bigger recognition from who? Everyone who recognizes and is exposed to Spider-Man movies already watches Avengers (and probably IM3). And how much does Sony have to pay (over what they're already paying just to have the character) to have the MCU promote their character? Are you sure that money would be better spent on... y'know... commercials?

It has nothing to do with what we want, but addressing the simple reality that it doesn't benefit the companies involved.

Sony is going to try a S-MCU and it's going to fail miserably...because it lacks Spider-Man.

 

[SpideyFan866]

Wut?

OK everyone .... in 2018 just forget about the fact that The Amazing Spider-Man movies took place in 2012 and 2014. Just block it out of your mind so that Spider-Man can somehow exist.

Did I not just say that they'd have to retcon to fix the date discrepancies?


Please read completely before you decide to make a snide remark. Otherwise, you just make yourself look like a jackass.


Okay?


Okay.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Sony is batting 2 for 4 as far as good Spider-Man movies and 1 for 4 as far as great Spider-Man movies. TASM and SM3 were mediocre trash.

I was refering to the "box office battle". Spider-Man remains the highest grossing solo marvel franchise.

A crossover benefits both brands. They both get bigger recognition and they both benefit from the exposure at the box office.

I'm not talking money or exposure I'm talking story and movie content. Spider-Man doesn't need Avengers as he has a wide variety of characters and stories to explore.

Anyone who is saying that they do not want Spider-Man in the MCU is not a true fan of Spider-Man because they are essentially wanting less Spider-Man in movies (not to mention the fact that he was an Avenger in the comics). That's the end of that story.

Actually they are more of a fan of a Spider-Man as they anticipate any and all Spider-Man movies no matter the studio or universe.

In recent years everyone seems to have become an a Avenger, Spidey was included because he is the biggest Marvel name but as a characters he always has and always will work best alone.

 

[Zarex]

By 2018 we'll have had 7 Spider-Man movies in 17 years. If you think that Sony's idea of a cinematic connected universe consisting of Spider-Man movies without Spider-Man won't work - and I don't think it will - then the studio is going to have to reboot the character for a 2nd time. AMS experienced an 18.6% percent erosion in WW box office from the last of the Raimi series, and I would expect another significant drop when Sony reboots for the 2nd time.

By 2018 we'll have had 3 Avengers movies in 7 years and with the recent talk by Chris Evans retiring from acting, Marvel is going to have to replace at least one, and perhaps more of their "Big Three". The studio can probably move forward quite profitably with previously introduced characters such as Hulk, Iron Patriot, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Vision and Falcon (and others), but they may not have the "star" attraction required to bring in the mega grosses to which Marvel has become accustomed.

But what if the two studios work together? After the death of one or two key Avengers in Avengers: Infinity, Stark/Fury or someone else goes on a recruiting trip to bring in Miles Morales to the team. Sony controls and distributes a new series of Spider-Man films with the character also appearing in three new Avengers films. Sony gets to reboot the series with a fresh take and ties to the MCU. Marvel gets the use of their most popular character and gets to sell lots of new tie-in merchandise. I think this scenario has a decent chance of becoming a reality.

 

[jonathancrane]

I'd prefer they not includeSpider-Man in Avengers world, let alone Miles. There are better characters to introduce/allocate the screen time to.

 

[Iceman]

I'll be a lot more open to new guys and outsiders when all the main Avengers from the comics have had a shot. I think they'll want to introduce about 2 new characters per film to keep each one fresh.

 

[SpideyFan866]

By 2018 we'll have had 7 Spider-Man movies in 17 years. If you think that Sony's idea of a cinematic connected universe consisting of Spider-Man movies without Spider-Man won't work - and I don't think it will - then the studio is going to have to reboot the character for a 2nd time. AMS experienced an 18.6% percent erosion in WW box office from the last of the Raimi series, and I would expect another significant drop when Sony reboots for the 2nd time.

By 2018 we'll have had 3 Avengers movies in 7 years and with the recent talk by Chris Evans retiring from acting, Marvel is going to have to replace at least one, and perhaps more of their "Big Three". The studio can probably move forward quite profitably with previously introduced characters such as Hulk, Iron Patriot, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Vision and Falcon (and others), but they may not have the "star" attraction required to bring in the mega grosses to which Marvel has become accustomed.

But what if the two studios work together? After the death of one or two key Avengers in Avengers: Infinity, Stark/Fury or someone else goes on a recruiting trip to bring in Miles Morales to the team. Sony controls and distributes a new series of Spider-Man films with the character also appearing in three new Avengers films. Sony gets to reboot the series with a fresh take and ties to the MCU. Marvel gets the use of their most popular character and gets to sell lots of new tie-in merchandise. I think this scenario has a decent chance of becoming a reality.

If you honestly think that a Venom movie and (ESPECIALLY) a Sinister Six movie WON'T have Spidey in it, AT LEAST for a cameo (as far as Venom goes), you're insane.

 

[Rowsdower!]

The title of this thread got me thinking. I wonder if they could get around all the legal red tape that goes with using Spider-Man simply by spelling his name without the hyphen. I'm serious here.

 

[DrCosmic]

If you honestly think that a Venom movie and (ESPECIALLY) a Sinister Six movie WON'T have Spidey in it, AT LEAST for a cameo (as far as Venom goes), you're insane.

Then I'm insane. Sinister Six would suck if it had Spidey in it, and Venom only needs Spidey if they don't cliffhanger it in an ASM movie.

 

[DrCosmic]

The title of this thread got me thinking. I wonder if they could get around all the legal red tape that goes with using Spider-Man simply by spelling his name without the hyphen. I'm serious here.

No. Legal contracts that involve millions/billions of dollars are comprehensive enough that anything that adversely affects the brand is grounds for a lawsuit.

By 2018 we'll have had 7 Spider-Man movies in 17 years. If you think that Sony's idea of a cinematic connected universe consisting of Spider-Man movies without Spider-Man won't work - and I don't think it will - then the studio is going to have to reboot the character for a 2nd time. AMS experienced an 18.6% percent erosion in WW box office from the last of the Raimi series, and I would expect another significant drop when Sony reboots for the 2nd time.

Or more likely, ASM2 does better than ASM, and ASM3 does better than ASM2 and so on until they stop being good films/stop making money, because among other things they know a reboot would be bad, and have no reason to reboot like they did after SM3. Especially since they talked about using Miles Morales, so basically, even when Garfield is done it won't be a reboot.

By 2018 we'll have had 3 Avengers movies in 7 years and with the recent talk by Chris Evans retiring from acting, Marvel is going to have to replace at least one, and perhaps more of their "Big Three". The studio can probably move forward quite profitably with previously introduced characters such as Hulk, Iron Patriot, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, Vision and Falcon (and others), but they may not have the "star" attraction required to bring in the mega grosses to which Marvel has become accustomed.

Or they can just recast like they planned on doing. And instead of trying to promote Spider-Man, why not just do for Dr. Strange, Black Panther and Captain Marvel what they did for Cap, IM and Thor, turning them into hosuehold names. Iron Man is actually more popular with kids than Spidey nowadays.

But what if the two studios work together? After the death of one or two key Avengers in Avengers: Infinity, Stark/Fury or someone else goes on a recruiting trip to bring in Miles Morales to the team. Sony controls and distributes a new series of Spider-Man films with the character also appearing in three new Avengers films. Sony gets to reboot the series with a fresh take and ties to the MCU. Marvel gets the use of their most popular character and gets to sell lots of new tie-in merchandise. I think this scenario has a decent chance of becoming a reality.

So, same issues we've been talking about all thread: Does Marvel share profits with Sony from Avengers films with Spidey in it? Does Sony get any creative input on Avengers movies, what they do with Spider-Man?

Also... the fact that Marvel Studios made Iron Man a top three most popular hero in five years time suggests that maybe Spider-Man isn't always going to be the most popular hero. So does Marvel actual need Spider-Man in the MCU? Wouldn't it be better off for their bottom line if they made Black Panther popular and got 100% of the results form his movie?

 

[Rock Sexton]

So, same issues we've been talking about all thread: Does Marvel share profits with Sony from Avengers films with Spidey in it? Does Sony get any creative input on Avengers movies, what they do with Spider-Man?

Also... the fact that Marvel Studios made Iron Man a top three most popular hero in five years time suggests that maybe Spider-Man isn't always going to be the most popular hero. So does Marvel actual need Spider-Man in the MCU? Wouldn't it be better off for their bottom line if they made Black Panther popular and got 100% of the results form his movie?

The headaches they'd inevitably run into with two studios haggling over creative control would be absurd ..... then you toss "how" they'd split the money. There's no point. Marvel is doing just fine and there's no reason for them to split anything. At the end of the day that's all that matters here.

If Sony wanted to have some kind of reference or cameo and they want to pay Marvel for that, then from a business standpoint on Marvel's end - that's less money spent on production. However, you open a huge can of worms for continuity problems and audience confusion if it's not just some blink-and-you-missed it event (i.e. Millenium Falcon in "Star Trek"). But again I still don't even understand the point from Sony's end in doing that. Disney/Marvel is not in the business of using the clout they've built to better Sony's brand.

 

[Zarex]

Or more likely, ASM2 does better than ASM, and ASM3 does better than ASM2 and so on until they stop being good films/stop making money, because among other things they know a reboot would be bad, and have no reason to reboot like they did after SM3. Especially since they talked about using Miles Morales, so basically, even when Garfield is done it won't be a reboot.

The Sony Spider-Man films may keep increasing their box office take through the fifth, sixth and seventh big screen releases. I'm not nearly as optimistic. And Sony may not have rights to use young Mr. Morales.

Or they can just recast like they planned on doing. And instead of trying to promote Spider-Man, why not just do for Dr. Strange, Black Panther and Captain Marvel what they did for Cap, IM and Thor, turning them into hosuehold names. Iron Man is actually more popular with kids than Spidey nowadays.

I think that recasting is an awful idea in a connected cinematic universe. I'm all for Marvel introducing a new Iron Man or Captain America - but I'd prefer they not be Tony Stark or Steve Rogers.

So, same issues we've been talking about all thread: Does Marvel share profits with Sony from Avengers films with Spidey in it? Does Sony get any creative input on Avengers movies, what they do with Spider-Man?

Some collaboration is required, but you would start with Sony controlling solo and Marvel controlling Avengers. Perhaps Marvel enhances the Sonyverse with a Defenders appearance. It's not so different than how it's done in the comics. The last time Marvel experimented with a format used in the comics it worked out pretty well.

Also... the fact that Marvel Studios made Iron Man a top three most popular hero in five years time suggests that maybe Spider-Man isn't always going to be the most popular hero. So does Marvel actual need Spider-Man in the MCU? Wouldn't it be better off for their bottom line if they made Black Panther popular and got 100% of the results form his movie?

I can't speak for Disney/Marvel execs, but I have to suspect regaining some cinematic control over their flagship character, even if it is the Miles version, would be a huge win for the studio. Marvel will certainly try to create new "stars" going forward. But Spidey's presence in the MCU can help that, just as Downey's Iron Man raised up the entire MCU.

 

[SpideyFan866]

Then I'm insane. Sinister Six would suck if it had Spidey in it, and Venom only needs Spidey if they don't cliffhanger it in an ASM movie.

But wouldn't it defeat the purpose of uniting the Sinister Six, if they aren't fighting Spider-Man in their first appearance? Granted, that film may take place after they battle Spidey, and be more akin to The Superior Foes of Spider-Man, but even still.

 

[Dasher10]

Honestly, Spider-Man is only one Avenger. He doesn't need to be part of the MCU when you consider that Captain Marvel, Ghost Rider, Moon Knight, Blade, Punisher and Black Panther aren't in production yet which gives Marvel plenty of untapped characters. Additionally, Pepper Potts hasn't become Rescue yet and Cybermancer has yet to team up with Iron Man, Captain America has yet to meet Diamondback, Hulk hasn't encountered She-Hulk and Thor hasn't teamed up with Beta Ray Bill or Thunderstrike so that leaves plenty of sidekicks to develop.

When you take all of that into account, the Avengers roster is already pretty stacked. Adding Spider-Man, Havok, Wolverine and Thing to the roster just because they're Avengers in the comics discounts how great Marvel Studios' library of IP is. IMO, Wolverine, Havok and Thing have their own team books that they're part of and Spider-Man's slot on the team being filled by Ghost Rider is a worthy trade.

 

[fixxxer]

I think this whole "Spider-Man shouldn't be an Avenger" backlash is a bit of a straw-man argument. I don't think folks in the "Spidey belongs in the MCU" camp (or at least the majority) are looking for Spider-Man to actively join the Avengers team. Just for him to be in the MCU. Which going by the tone of TASM wouldn't be too difficult from a tone/continuity perspective.

To write Spider-Man into the MCU via references, cameos and Easter-eggs... and vice versa would be a win-win for both studios. Who does it hurt exactly?

 

[Webfoot Hero]

I think this whole "Spider-Man shouldn't be an Avenger" backlash is a bit of a straw-man argument. I don't think folks in the "Spidey belongs in the MCU" camp (or at least the majority) are looking for Spider-Man to actively join the Avengers team. Just for him to be in the MCU. Which going by the tone of TASM wouldn't be too difficult from a tone/continuity perspective.

To write Spider-Man into the MCU via references, cameos and Easter-eggs... and vice versa would be a win-win for both studios. Who does it hurt exactly?

It really wouldn't be a win-win for both studios. It'd likely be more of a win for Sony since they are struggling financially but actually splitting up the box office receipts and who'd control the production would be the biggest hurdles. I'm actually fine with Spider-Man not showing up in the MCU since he's not really necessary for success of an Avengers film. Let Sony continue putting out a reboot of their franchise every 8-10 years so they can keep his rights.

 

[fixxxer]

It really wouldn't be a win-win for both studios. It'd likely be more of a win for Sony since they are struggling financially but actually splitting up the box office receipts and who'd control the production would be the biggest hurdles. I'm actually fine with Spider-Man not showing up in the MCU since he's not really necessary for success of an Avengers film. Let Sony continue putting out a reboot of their franchise every 8-10 years so they can keep his rights.

But my "plan" wouldn't involve splitting of box office receipts, handing over production control or anything like that.

Would merely call for the Spider-Man movies to exist in the MCU sandbox and vice versa. Stuff like the much discussed "Oscorp building in The Avengers", using SHIELD in some capacity in the Spider-Man films, etc. None of this would require Marvel and Sony to make a financial deal. Just acknowledge and work within the context of a shared continuity so that there's even the possibility of a deal sometime down the line.